Welcome to the best KC Chiefs site on the internet. You can view any post as a visitor, but you are required to register before you can post. Click the register link above, it only takes 30 seconds to start chatting with Chiefs fans from all over the world! Enjoy your stay!

The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

0

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.

Despite how it's spun, the fact of the matter is that Congress and their staff get a 72% tax payer Governmental subsidy that John Q. Public does not get. And, I agree; why make the American public suffer? It's something Democrats, obviously, have no problem with.

Despite how it's spun, the fact of the matter is that Congress and their staff get a 72% tax payer Governmental subsidy that John Q. Public does not get. And, I agree; why make the American public suffer? Something Democrats, obviously, have no problem with.

Quote from Link 1:
Under the old system, the federal government contributed to about 75 percent of premiums; members and staffers are covered through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, but it was unclear if the program could subsidize premiums of plans on the exchanges.

So Congress will get this subsidy no matter what the outcome is here. They are getting it right now with the old system!!!

Quote from Link 2:
The latest House bill, which the chamber backed on a 228-201 vote, would have delayed the law's individual mandate while prohibiting lawmakers, their staff and top administration officials from getting government subsidies for their health care.

I also do not want them to have this subsidy and to find out today that Congress has already been getting this subsidy, and for a long time now, makes me upset. Even though, no reason to stop the government. The voting was pretty close and if one side wants to have a clear win, they gotta get the people to vote for them. Only then is it proper rather than shutting down the government.

Quote from Link 1:
Under the old system, the federal government contributed to about 75 percent of premiums; members and staffers are covered through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, but it was unclear if the program could subsidize premiums of plans on the exchanges.

So Congress will get this subsidy no matter what the outcome is here. They are getting it right now with the old system!!!

Quote from Link 2:
The latest House bill, which the chamber backed on a 228-201 vote, would have delayed the law's individual mandate while prohibiting lawmakers, their staff and top administration officials from getting government subsidies for their health care.

I also do not want them to have this subsidy and to find out today that Congress has already been getting this subsidy, and for a long time now, makes me upset. Even though, no reason to stop the government. The voting was pretty close and if one side wants to have a clear win, they gotta get the people to vote for them. Only then is it proper rather than shutting down the government.

Quote from Link 1:
Under the old system, the federal government contributed to about 75 percent of premiums; members and staffers are covered through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, but it was unclear if the program could subsidize premiums of plans on the exchanges.

So Congress will get this subsidy no matter what the outcome is here. They are getting it right now with the old system!!!

Here is what you are missing. Under the old system, Senators, Congressmen and their staffers got their insurance through their employer, the Federal Government, just like most Americans get insurance through their employer. Employers typically pay 75 to 80% of the premiums. Under the ACA, congress and their staff will get their insurance through the exchanges. The Government subsidizes those premiums up to 4 times the poverty level. Obama put in place a special exemption that allows House and Senate Members to get a 72% subsidy for their insurance no matter how much money they make! Nobody else gets this subsidy to purchase insurance through the exchange if they don't qualify for financial assistance. That is an unfair special exemption.

Originally Posted by mejohnm

Rush, he is a joke and his shows are just that, a show.

This is coming from a guy who gets his news from a liberal stand-up comedian on a late night talk show on a comedy network! Do you listen to Rush? If so how often? I don't agree with everything he says, but a lot of it makes good sense. I like Jonathon Stewart. I think he is very funny. (Actually, I think Stephen Colbert is even better.) But Stewart is not a good source for hard hitting news or balanced political commentary. He is a comedian, not a news analyst. His opinions are every bit as biased as Limbaugh's The difference is that Stewart uses cartoons and jokes about the NFL to back up his point of view, while Rush is on the air 3 hours per day backing up his opinions with solid logical arguments, facts and figures. You say Rush is a joke. Jonathon Stewart is a joke teller. Give me 3 examples of where Rush is wrong. Can you even come up with one?

Originally Posted by mejohnm

So what do we need to do? We vote in the party which we think can fix this problem. Still think the 2 party system is what is killing us.

If we had 4 or 5 parties (Libertarian, Green party, Socialist, etc) nobody would ever get enough votes to pass anything unless they formed coalitions and joined forces. Then you would be back to a de facto two party system. If we had just one party that would be even worse. One party rule gave us the Affordable Care Act and led to the holocaust.

2 party rule is working as intended. It prevents highly partisan legislation from getting passed and only bills which have bi-partisan support become laws.

Poll results can be be highly skewed depending how the questions are worded. I'm also highly skeptical of polls that are conducted by highly biased organizations (MoveOn.org, MSNBC, Fox News). That poll was conducted by "the Morning Consult, a healthcare media company." They would have a high personal interest in implementing a law that requires everyone in the country to buy healthcare insurance.

But the biggest red flag for me is this: "Most polls show that voters disapprove of the 2010 health care law by significant margins. The Morning Consult’s poll did not" That tells me that the poll is biased and not asking neutral questions that would lead to an accurate poll result.

"Here are the numbers. 26 percent of the respondents identified as Republicans, compared to 42 percent Democrats and 31 percent independents."
The poll highly under represents Republicans, slightly under represents Democrats and highly over represents independents (who tend to predominantly vote Democrat). An accurate poll should should have numbers that mirror the American population.

And did you read the "update" at the bottom of the page in the same article?

There is support across the political spectrum for delaying the individual mandate one year and using the government funding bill to implement the delay. Additionally, the survey found that by a 5-point margin, respondents support using every opportunity to defund or delay the ACA rather than simply passing a “clean” bill to fund the government.Fully 56 percent of respondents support the individual mandate delay in the context of a continuing resolution debate, including 55 percent of independents, and 52 percent overall in “swing districts.” The survey also found that strong majorities across the spectrum oppose the Affordable Care Act, including 60 percent of independents, and a majority in “swing districts.”...

In response to these new polling numbers, American Action Forum President Doug Holtz-Eakin said, “On policy, the verdict is in. Among voters across the spectrum, Obamacare is unpopular and the funding bill is an appropriate place to fight for government reforms. They will support efforts to keep the government open and make changes to Obamacare.” (emphases added)